It must be pointed out that Victoria Edwards' report makes a wholly erroneous remark about the terms of the Indian government's 1989 out-of-court settlement with Union Carbide, that I can only assume originates from Dow's Public Affairs department as an unattributed source.
The article says that, "the settlement exempted Union Carbide from additional responsibilities in the cleanup." The settlement actually covered civil awards to individual victims, nothing more. There was no 'exemption from liability' for the massive environmental contamination at Union Carbide's factory contained in any part of the Indian Supreme Court's ratification of the settlement. Indeed, in 1989 little enough was known about the contamination. It wasn't until April 1990 - when an independent study was carried out by the Citizen’s Environmental Laboratory, Boston on soil samples - that the contamination was officially established.
If Victoria Edwards' remark can be explained as an honest mistake, the same cannot be said of the outright lies and specious reasoning of Dow spokesman John Musser. For example, Musser states that "(Dow-Carbide) has not tested the water in Bhopal, but the Indian government tested it and found nothing wrong with it."
First of all, the Indian government hasn't conducted a single test on either the water or soil in Bhopal. Secondly, if Musser refers to the Madhya Pradesh state government, then they did conduct two tests in 1991 and November 1996, but they certainly didn't produce the results Musser claims: "The tubewells in these areas were tested five years back and at that time too the results showed chemical contamination. Hence, it is established that this pollution is due to chemicals used in the Union Carbide factory that have proven to be extremely harmful for health. Therefore the use of this water for drinking must be stopped immediately." Sd. Chief Chemist, State Research Laboratory, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal.
In all nine separate studies have demonstrated the existence of serious contamination in and around the Carbide factory. Union Carbide, as the polluter, is bound under US law, International law and Indian law, to undertake the clean up. Dow, as the 100% owner of Union Carbide (Dow's John Dearborn is Carbide's CEO, Dow's European CEO Luciano Respini is a director and Dow's vice president Frank Brod is Carbide's registrant) is legally bound, under US merger law, to take control of each of Carbide's assets AND liabilities. It is irrelevant, in the eyes of the law, for Dow to claim that they didn't cause the contamination themselves: as of February 2001, Dow IS Carbide. It's as simple as that. Each new illness and death resulting from the mutagenic and carcinogenic chemicals 20,000 Bhopalis are drinking daily is therefore entirely Dow's responsibility and Dow's alone. And if that wasn't enough, one of Dow's 'Responsible Care' commitments is a promise "to work with others to resolve problems associated with past handling and disposal practices". Or don't Dow believe in 'Responsible Care' after all?
Credit where credit's due, Musser is correct to say that "Dow was not named in the criminal lawsuit". This is correct only because it's expressed in the past tense: the Indian CBI are, as I write this, preparing a case to get Dow indicted in the criminal trial in Bhopal in the near future, and for the legal reasons described above. But then at least Musser has admitted that there's a criminal case against Carbide - unlike Dow CEO William Stavropoulos, who denied to the assembled shareholders at Dow's AGM that there was a criminal case at all, and who has neglected to inform the same shareholders that he has misinformed them.
What then follows from Musser is startlingly perverse: "the Indian government has no jurisdiction over Union Carbide or Mr. Anderson; therefore, they are not appearing in court." Setting aside the sheer contempt for the law this sentence denotes, between 1985-6, when Carbide faced hearings in the US courts over Bhopal, the company argued for the case to be sent to India, praising the Indian judicial system to the skies. In acceding to these pleas, Justice John F Keenan placed three conditions upon Carbide: the third being that Carbide must abide by any decision in the Indian courts which "comport with the minimal requirements of due process". What Musser is actually saying is that, as no one is making Carbide and Anderson face trial in India, they will not go. In presenting this as a reasonable position, Dow makes it's own attitude to the law of the land perfectly apparent.
Sadly for Dow, they may not have the same choices as Carbide, the company they have digested. Dow have property in India, a $150 million business, that is acutely vulnerable to the sanctions of the Indian courts. It could be that by the time of the next AGM, Dow's CEO will have to use a little more honesty about the liabilities that came with Carbide.